Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)
eir was prepared, it's with the ceqa guidelines. this concludes my presentation on the matter unless the commission members have any comments? >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you for your comments and particular reference and i was going to make the same comment in regards to responses to public comment and as i understand it and you pointed out under ceqa, you can't take into consideration the impact that something that is conceptual has not been funded or analyzed, it's the other way around, when that particular project would come up and you would have to look at this and there's no way of knowing what impacks that would bring, it might improve traffic flow as i think has been the case with the freeway not being there, i think we had more congestion when that was being presented. the other question i have and typically the period of time between the end of the draft eir comment period and the final eir certification is much shorter than is the case here and i think i understand that because a selection was made of a particular variant and it needed -- while there weren't any cha
. this is a conundrum in regional planning. the general direction, and particularly with ceqa, is to look at the regional air quality and the regional greenhouse gas emissions. the way you do that is to reduce the vehicle miles traveled. this is the kind of project that gets you to your 20% most -- >> good evening, supervisors. my name is morgan fits gibbons here on behalf of the wig party. we work to make the wiggle more sustainable and resilient. i'm here to make a couple of points on behalf of the hundreds and hundreds of people in our organization that live in the neighborhood. the first point has already been mentioned is that this plan was born through a terribly expensive community process, and kudos to the mta for leading a great process. so this is definitely the will of the people. people want their bike lanes on fell and oak. the second point is from may to october, a full five months, the only thing that was happening on this project was the planning department was addressing this very issue of the environmental impact report and if we're now going to go back and look over the
was adequate, accurate and fulfilled the city's requirements pursuant to ceqa guidelines in chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code. decisions before the board is whether to uphold the department's decision to issue a categorical exemption and deny the appeal or return the project to department for additional environmental review. as detailed in the categorical exemption the department concluded fell and oak street categorical exemption under ceqa guideline section or class 1c section 15304h or class 4h. the proposed implementation of bulbouts, on street parking changes, and enhancement of the bike lane would be -- under the class 1(c) which revises exemption to existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails and similar facilities. the changes contemplated by the project are considered minor or negative liberal as they would be implemented within the right of way on both fell and oak streets and do not fundamentally change the system in the project vicinity. prohibiting parking would be a minor alteration of the right of way. both fell and
. finally, because the fell and oak project is obviously part of the greater plan to create bike lanes ceqa analysis should be done in connection with the eir for the san francisco bicycle plan project not piecemealed from the larger project that is ceqa rule. determination -- the determination made no effort to address the fell oak project in the larger context of the citywide bicycle projects. >> president chiu: thank you very much. colleagues, any final questions to the appellants, project sponsor or any other parties in this hearing? okay. seeing none, this hearing's been held and closed. colleagues, this item is in the hands of the board. supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: i just wanted to move to affirm the exemption determination of the san francisco mta and agency fell and oak streets bikeways projects so my motion would be to affirm the determination of the planning department that the san francisco fell and oak project is exempt from environmental review. >> president chiu: motion made toaire firm the categorical exemption tabling items 42, 43, seconded by supervisor campos.
's concerns were not ceqa-related, but rather on the merits of project. supervisor elsbernd commented this was a wonderful example of why it should be adopted since the appellant's issues had nothing to do with ceqa concerned. and lastly a new ordinance sponsor by board president chiu that changing the copy on a sign should not be treated as a new sign. so this will be before you in the next three months that. concludes my report. >> thank you. commissioner wu. >> thank you. i wanted to ask on the tdif, i understand that supervisor wiener will be convening meets and you can give us updates on the broad direction of those meetings. >> we can do that, thank you. >> the board of appeals did meet last night and one item of note was a re-hearing request for building permit application dealing with glenn canyon park and before the hearing the request was withdrawn and the decision became final and the building permit is approved. just wanted to inform the commission on that and there are no other reports. >> commissioners, under item 814601 larkin street, informational, current stat
to pursue action for building code and ceqa violations. so in that regard, we will be submitting a letter to the city attorney. it's in part it reets, dear city attorney -- san francisco neighborhoods request the city of san francisco for ceqa violations as well as the vacant building ordinance for 1601 larkin street. goes on, the planninggv 8, commission, twice rejek plans for replacement and'jpt; directd owner toájj!tv secure and mainte building. dbi documented code violations or other illegal activity. we expect city attorney to planning department files, history of cads and 311 reports and detail accountsm=nnñ available from neighbors while looking at enforcement for this project through a long delay ultimately the responsibility of the city of san francisco city attorney to protect neighborhoods, uphold laws intended for secure community, and assist operations of city agencies such as our police, planning department, and department of building inspections. we would appreciate your follow-up on the history of violations as well as enforcement of our state and city laws at 1601 larki
the project was reviewed and cleared through ceqa in 2000 by this commission and one of the mitigation measures outlined in the final environmental impact report was the creation of an interpretive display that was publicly accessible, that outlined not only the history of the roache building, which was an important lithography and printing business in the city but the building functioned as a social hall for the german-american community. it was meant to cover all of the history of the building and be located with adjacent to a public right of way. the historic preservation review commission reviewed the content and found it to be adequate however the design, which includes a series of printed ceramic tiles, they felt was disruptive to the content on the interpretive display. while they did approve the content and the location, they did ask the project sponsor to continue working with the planning department on either a suitable material to properly display the information, or to redesign the interpretive display to better follow the ceramic tiles that are being prop
, is -- and this is an appeal under ceqa, it's not an appeal on the merits of the project. and so i think there are times when appeals -- ceqa appeals come before us, and you sometimes arguments about the merits of the project get mixed in, and that may be because that's the only way for the item to come to us. and whether -- agree or disagree with it but in 1999 the voters gave the policy authority over these kinds of issues to the mta board of directors and took that authority away from the board of supervisors. so i'm hearing, both in the written submissions and also in what you're saying today, rernss references to what's good or bad engineering, what's a better route or a worse route, references to disability access, to fire safety. those are all very legitimate and important policy considerations to weigh and coming up with any plan. but how should we think about this distinction between what is the right policy decision, which is not within our power, versus whether this project was categorically exempt or not from ceqa. because i think it's really important for us, regardless of what anyone's personal
group of stakeholders is looking at addressing accessible parking issues. the last few here, ceqa reform we're following it to see where it goes at state level. we don't have a define ask for ceqa reform, but there are a lot of conversations going on at the state level. the taxi legislation we'll work with chris and her team to make sure we're engaging on those issues as appropriate. moving to the federal side, the mayor is back there this week and director reiskin is also back there this week, really talking about federal prioritis in general. trying to make -- we have been thinking about what matters now? we have our full funding grant agreement and what is our method in washington? one the most important things is to emphasize the continued need for the federal-local partnership. so much of the investment that is made in san francisco for capital projects, the major projects that you have all heard reported about for the last couple of years, those are funded with federal dollars and this is a good year to talk about why that investment matters' with make the case for increased fe
for the purpose of ceqa. so changes to the exterior of the building currently are reviewed for compatibility. the department held many community meetings, as we mentioned, and we heard back from the community that there were certain parts of buildings that they were not interested in seeing very strenuous review. for example, the rear of buildings, in a typical landmark district, any exterior alteration that requires a buildings permit would also require a certificate of proposesness, a hearing of the preservation commission, or in some cases an administrative certificate of appropriateness. what the department did was look at these different buildings elements and possible scopes of work, to see if we could streamline the process for alterations and require less review, and in many cases not require additional review in the form even of an administrative certificate of appropriateness. so many alterations of the non-visible rear properties would not require additional review so that process would be the same. other examples include the replacement of windows which is a big topic. the depart
the ceqa status of this project. if the mitigated negative declaration is still valid for this project given changes in project conditions, circumstances, et cetera. if the city's environmental review officer needs to issue a letter to file so indicating. it would seem to me to the extent that this board is making a discretionary approval tonight that might have an impact on the environment that you're relying on some ceqa determination, and if that mnd is not valid or arguably changed due to park merced or san francisco state or other changes to the project or other circumstances then i think that environmental determination might be at issue in your discussion tonight. thank you very much for your time and i was not sworn in earlier so do i need to verify that i blah,, blah? >> if you would like to be you can be sworn in. >> okay. i hereby affirm that the statements that i made are true to the best of my knowledge. david pilpow. is that good enough? >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening commissioners. my name is julian lagos and the founder and chairperson of the
. >> >> two lawsuits and one was ceqa and negative declaration filed in 2005 and denyed in 2006. mr. lagos a pied that. the other churches and schools did not appeal the court of appeal and dismissed that appeal in 201270 later in 2007 is there was a permit issued for tree removal and this board upheld that permit. mr. lagos and another neighbor filed a second writ petition in 2007. that was denied in 2008 and no appeal to that denial. >> so neither of the lawsuits dealt with anything relating to the lapse in use condition? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> counselor, i have several questions. back to the question i asked the zoning administrator. your chronology was quite detailed. it shows mostly end dates as to when you procured certainly types of approvals. can you flush out that period of time what activities were taking place between 08 and 11? there were only one item in that time frame that was an actual approval which was the arts commission approval. tell us what activities took place during that time that justifies your contention there was no lapse? >> there w
number 8, resolution adopting findings under the california environmental quality act, c-e-q-a guidelines, and san francisco administrative code chapter 31, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, related to the funding of project no. cuw 26403, the geary road bridge project, in alameda county and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to notify the controller of this action. >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. the item before you today is to adopt the c-e-q-a findings for the geary bridge project. it is located in snow california and crosses over all immediate a creek within the snow regional wilderness area. the purpose of the project is to replace an existing wooden bridge with a new concrete and steel bridge that can accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. the existing bridge was constructed in the 1930s and refurbished in the 1960s. the maximum loading capacity is limited to 8 tons and this restricts fire, maintenance, and cattle transport vehicles from accessing the bridge. these vehicles must use a nearby low wat
approvals to begin with, also a lot of the issues with respect to the ceqa revisions that supervisor wiener was proposing, some of which are very good, some of which i think are very bad because the approval time or the appeal time on a ceqa notice is triggered by an event that happens so -- with no notice, so that there are many things that in principle could trigger an appeal of a neg dec but there's no notice of an event until a permit is issued. that doesn't give people time to analyze what the problem is and go into it. there are so many areas where better communication can make the whole system more efficient and remove resistance to changes that would make things flow even better so i'm really asking, please, revive that. i will continue to press this in a number of different forums, thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong and vice-president wu, commissioners, i'm a native san franciscan born and raised in the mission district, i've lived in this city my entire life, i passed the half century mark, i'm a proud member of carpenter's local 122, a labor organization, for 130 year,
. there will also be some funding for refining ceqa analysis procedures, and for preservation document revisions. so in total, this initiative is approximately $2.9 million. second, as i mentioned, we are hoping that the supplemental appropriation will go towards funding some current underfunded commitments that we have and there's two listed here. the first, as you're aware, we are in the middle of a two year implementation of our permit and tracking system in collaboration with department of building inspection and there is a need to have some more advanced training resources on this system. it also there are some additional configuration needs for the system. so this $45,000 would go towards that. second for the central corridor eir funding, the department did receive $350,000 of general funding over the last budget cycle for this eir, and the department has secured, in total, $600,000 from the metropolitan transportation commission of grant funding. but there is an additional need for $250,000 to complete the necessary analysis on this project. yesterday, i delivered this same presentation to th
in its present state? >> the park is contributed as a contributor to the ceqa historic districts so future alterations to the park would need considered environmental review, and we did have a discussion early on with rec and park who was concerned about potentially having any review of the harvey milk center for example and we tried to emphasize it's unusual connection between the park and the buildings, the lack of a physical separation of the roadway, these park entrances, and they understood that, and they agreed that these small were the most important areas. >> a couple more things. when you do interior changes -- let's say you want to put a new kitchen in one of these you wouldn't be necessarily restricted in how did you that. >> correct. >> you wouldn't need a certificate until it was entirely interior. >> correct. the affordable care act only applies to exterior improvements. >> >> >> and there was one gentleman that said he needed a huge number for the under grounding which is in place. i think we have the historic light post in that district but he needed a huge numbe
for building code and ceqa violations. please wait 12 months before this project is considered. >> did you call rowena jen? >> yes. rowena had to leave and so i have this statement that they are back hacking up the building again. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> yes. good afternoon commissioners my name is elizabeth gordan and i with my co-owners own the building next door, 1630 clay street. it's a 6-unit residential building and i'm speaking on behalf of all the owners of 1630 clay street today. our building is the neighboring building most impacted bit proposed project. we have been supportive of this project conditionally since 2006. with this said, when we last testified before you on june 28th, we reported that we were in discussion with the project sponsor and architect to address our concerns. we had yet however to reach an agreement and get that into a signed document. almost six months later we're definitely further down the road, and very encouraged by the progress that has been made on the overall design. but we still have some outstanding matters
has not gone through ceqa, there's no environmental impact regarding trash, traffic, parking light or noise. the traffic and garbage will only attract more seagulls and pigeons. if you have a walk the next morning issue evening along the seawall check out the rat infestation that will multiply more. usc san francisco, i spent nine years as an attending surgeon, i'm attending surgeon at st. francis hospital where i've been on staff for 28 years covering the emergency room and had the honor of taking care of hundreds if not thousands of citizens, adults and children alike, killed and maimed and severely impaired by drunk drivers. i don't want to have to go home and have the honor and pleasure instead of hearing kids play soccer hear screams of kids getting run over by drunk drivers. i request you think about the proposed restaurant that's being put in there. it's only benefiting one person and that's the developer. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, board of supervisors. let me start off by saying that was not a disrespect to you all, in terms of
of not following ceqa, or the planning code or the law. up to now you have done so. i am concerne concerned about af discretion. a decision was made. it was a different project. and that was done before architectural drawings were submitted -- were even drawn. they weren't drawn yet. have all the documentation. before planning -- before an application was submitted, before a project description, according to the cord pondance that we've seen, how do you make a decision that this is a different project. and, you know, street chamber again, you know, is very concerned. you can't get in here today but very concerned about giving discretion that belongs to the planning commission and staff to a few individuals and letting them negotiate, this isn't the way we did it before. we would meet with the director to negotiate and maybe the director would negotiate or maybe -- you know. and in the past you didn't have the kinds of tools you have now, like demolition controls. when they actually approved some of these things and vacant building ordinances. >> president fong: is there any additional public comm
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)